DOCSLIB.ORG

Bird Migration Monitoring in the Saint Nikola Wind Farm, Kaliakra Region, in Autumn 2016, and an Analysis of Potential Impact After Seven Years of Operation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bird Migration Monitoring in the Saint Nikola Wind Farm, Kaliakra Region, in Autumn 2016, and an Analysis of Potential Impact After Seven Years of Operation Bird migration monitoring in the Saint Nikola Wind Farm, Kaliakra region, in autumn 2016, and an analysis of potential impact after seven years of operation Dr. Pavel Zehtindjiev Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1113, Sofia, 2 Gagarin St., Bulgaria e-mail: [email protected] Dr. D. Philip Whitfield Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK November 2016 Report to AES Geo Energy OOD, 32A Cherni Vrah blvd, Sofia, Bulgaria 1 TERMS OF USE You understand and agree that the information in, or derived from, this document may not be copied, republished, redistributed, transmitted, altered, edited, used or exploited in any manner for any purpose, without the express written permission of AES Geo Energy OOD ("AES"). You also agree that AES and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors in the content, or for any actions taken by you, or any third-party, in reliance thereon. Facts and other information discussed in this document have been obtained from sources considered reliable, but are not guaranteed, and AES makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this document or any other document or website referred to it or accessed through a hyperlink on AES' website. When you access a non-AES website, you understand that it is independent from AES, and that AES has no control over the content on that website. In addition, a link to a non-AES website does not mean that AES endorses or accepts any responsibility for the content, or the use, of such website. In no event will AES be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, special or other consequential damages for any use of this document, including, without limitation, any breach of law, any lost profits, business interruption, loss of programs or other data on your information handling system or otherwise, even if we are expressly advised of the possibility of such damages. All information is provided by AES on an "as is" basis only. AES provides no representations and warranties, express or implied, including the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose, merchantability and non-infringement. Except as explicitly stated otherwise, any notices of any dispute with respect to these Terms of Use or document shall be given by mail to AES Geo Energy OOD, 32A Cherni Vrah blvd, Sofia, Bulgaria. Any disputes arising out of your use of this document shall be governed in all respects by the laws of Bulgaria. Both parties submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in compliance with its rules for litigation based on arbitration agreements. Copyright © AES Geo Energy 2016. All rights reserved. 2 Contents SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 THE STUDY AREA.............................................................................................................................................. 5 STUDY DURATION AND EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................................... 5 BASIC VISUAL OBSERVATION PROTOCOL .............................................................................................. 6 METHOD OF COLLISION VICTIM MONITORING .................................................................................... 8 STATISTICAL METHODS ................................................................................................................................. 8 TURBINE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM (TSS) .......................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 9 COMPOSITION OF SPECIES AND NUMBER OF BIRDS PASSING THROUGH SNWF ....................... 9 ALTITUDE OF AUTUMN MIGRATION ........................................................................................................16 DIRECTION OF AUTUMN BIRD MIGRATION ...........................................................................................18 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF OBSERVED ‘MAJOR’ INFLUXES OF SOARING MIGRANTS AND TURBINE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM ...................................................................................24 COLLISION VICTIM MONITORING.............................................................................................................29 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................32 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................................33 3 SUMMARY 1. This report presents the results of 90 consecutive days of monitoring and mitigation at Saint Nikola Wind Farm (SNWF) in 2016, its 7th operational year. The continued purpose is to investigate the possible impacts of SNWF on migrating birds. 2. Spatial and temporal dynamics in the numbers of different species passing through the wind farm territory during autumn migration 2016 (15 August to 31 October) are presented. The data from the autumn monitoring in the years 2008 to 2016 are used to investigate the potential change in species composition, numbers, altitude or the flight direction of birds observed in these nine years at SNWF. 3. The variations in numbers of species, absolute number of birds, overall altitudes of flight and migratory direction of birds most sensitive to wind turbines do not indicate an adverse effect of the wind farm on diurnal migrating birds. 4. The Turbine Shutdown System (TSS) probably contributed to a reduced risk of collision during all years of operation within infrequent periods of intensive soaring bird migration and provided a safety mechanism to reduce collision risk for single birds and flocks of endangered bird species. 5. Regular searches under operational turbines for collision victims were continued, as in several previous years. In autumn 2016 these searches recorded only single casualties, for several species of no conservation concern: Magpie, Jay, Spotted flycatcher, Red- backed shrike, House martin, Kestrel, Goldcrest, Starling and Yellow-legged gull. 6. The predicted mortality rates by species based on preconstruction data on numbers of migrating birds are not supported by the mortality observed during any of the seven years of operation of SNWF. The levels of mortality predicted pre-construction have not been recorded during any year of operation. This is largely because ‘worst case’ predictions were based on BSPB (Bulgarian BirdLife partner) data that substantially exaggerated the numbers of migrants passing through SNWF. 7. The results to date continue to indicate that SNWF does not constitute a significant displacement/disturbing obstacle or mortality threat, either physically or demographically, to any of the populations of diurnal autumn migrants observed in this study. INTRODUCTION AES Geo Energy OOD constructed a 156 MW wind farm consisting of 52 turbines: the St Nikola Wind Farm (SNWF). In autumn 2008, SNWF did not exist; in autumn 2009 the facility was built but not operational (i.e. turbine blades were stationary), and in the autumns of 2010 - 2016 SNWF was operational. In previous SNWF autumn reports the major focus was assessment of potential barrier effect on birds migrating through the territory and the level of collision mortality of migrants. The analysis of the data until now showed no evidence for cumulative long term changes in the migratory bird fauna. The main results of the autumn monitoring of bird migration in the vicinity of SNWF in previous years are published at: http://www.aesgeoenergy.com/site/Studies.html. In these studies negligible collision mortality 4 of migrating birds was found; indicating a high micro avoidance rate of the turbines by migrating bird species. The present report updates the information on spatial distribution and temporal presence of birds in SNWF during autumn 2016 with, as in previous reports, special focus on soaring species deemed most sensitive to wind turbines. The observed increase of birds in SNWF in previous autumn seasons under westerly winds was tested statistically in a detailed correlative analysis of wind direction and bird numbers in autumn 2016. Figure 1. Schematic representation of the main autumnal migratory flyway (blue arrows) and the location of SNWF (in red). METHODS The study area SNWF is located in NE Bulgaria, approximately three to seven kilometers inland of the Black Sea coast and the cape of Kaliakra (Fig. 1). The wind farm lies between the road from the village of Bulgarevo to St. Nikola (municipality of Kavarna), and the 1st class road E 87 Kavarna – Shabla. The location of observation points is presented in Fig.2. Study duration and equipment The study was carried out between 15 August and 31 October 2016 using standard methods that are comparable for all nine autumn seasons since studies began in 2008, using
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bulgarian Ports Infrastructure Company
    BULGARIAN PORTS INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY www.bgports.bg BULGARIAN PORTS INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY Bulgarian Ports Infrastructure Company Bulgarian Ports Infrastructure Company (BPI Co.) manages the port infrastructure of the public transport ports of national importance and provides traffic management and shipping information services. Head office of the BPI Co. is located in Sofia. BPI Co. has four territorial and three specialized divisions situated in Burgas, Varna, Lom and Ruse. Strategic objective of BPI Co. is to ensure optimum efficiency of port infrastructure and services provided by the company, taking into account the balance of interests in the development of the national port system. BULGARIAN PORTS INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY VTS AUTHORITY - BLACK SEA SPECIAL DIRECTORATE OF BULGARIAN PORTS INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY COVERAGE: SEA PORTS AND TERRITORIAL WATERS Danube River Balchik Varna The operational area of the Directorate covers the sea ports of Republic of Nesebar Black Bulgaria, the territorial and Burgas internal waters. Sea VTS Authority - Black Sea is made responsible for the provision of the full range of Vessel Traffic Services, including the IOS (information Service), TOS (Traffic Organization Service) and NAS (Navigational Assistance service) for the vessel traffic. The Directorate also provides vessel electronic documentation environment, port movements planning and organization and assistance in SAR, MAS and anti-pollution response. BULGARIAN PORTS INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY THE MAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE RESPONSIBILITY AREA: . Development of Vessel Traffic Management Information System – VTMIS; . Development and providing electronic data exchange environment for the governmental bodies and business stakeholders in the area of maritime transport: • Developing and providing Maritime Single Windows (MSW) for B2G vessel’s electronic documentation; • Developing and providing a Port Management System; • Developing a Port Community system for B2G and B2B electronic data exchange.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulgaria: Birding the Black Sea Coast : May 2018
    Bulgaria: Birding The Black Sea Coast : May 2018 Rose-Coloured Starlings Pastor roseus at Cape Kaliakra Report compiled by Ed.O’Hara with images by Comghal McQuillan and Ed.O’Hara Foreward: Initially I had planned to do this trip two years ago but due to family reasons I could only do so this spring and was joined by fellow birder Comghal McQuillan. Our guides were supplied by www.neophrontours.bg for their four day spring birding tour of the coastal areas of the Black Sea. Sunday 20 May 2018: Sarafovo : Overcast / Sunny spells. We flew out to Bourgas Airport the day before the trip began, so that we could ‘rest up’ before the four days of intensive birding began. We left Dublin at 06:00 and arrived in Bourgas at 12:00 [local time], roughly a four hour flight. Our hotel was the Mirana Family Hotel in Sarafovo, a 15 minute walk from the airport, which we did walk to, when we were asked to give some exorbitant fare for the five minute drive by the local taxi men. Having checked in by 14:00 Comghal and I went for a walk along the beach in the direction of Bourgas City, to an old saltpan which appeared to be no longer in use, by the state of the buildings. This walk proved productive and Comghal started to notch up the first of his eventual 35 lifers for the trip. Olivaceous Warblers were singing all along the track, along with Golden Oriole, Yellow Wagtails feldegg, Common Whitethroat and Blackcap. A Booted Eagle flew over, and a White Pelican was sitting out in the sea, 200m from the marina.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Thesis the Progress of Bulgaria in the Implementation Of
    Master Thesis The progress of Bulgaria in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network and the main stumbling blocks upon its way Nevena Hristova, ANR 283251 Tilburg University Law School May 2012 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. J. M. Verschuuren Contents Chapter 1 Thesis outline…………………………………………………….…………………….4 Chapter 2 The preaccession conditions in terms of nature conservation and the current status of the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria……………………………………..8 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..8 2. Nature conservation in Europe…………………………………………………………….8 3. Natura 2000 in Bulgaria…………………………………………………………………...9 3.1.Progress towards accession………………………….……………….………………11 3.2.Transposition of the Birds and the Habitats Directive……………………..………...15 3.3.Closure of Chapter 22 Environment………………….…………………….………..18 3.4.The Bulgarian Biological Diversity Act………………………………......…………20 3.5.The current status of the implementation……………………….……….…………...23 4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….25 Chapter 3 “When it comes to nature protection, nothing in Bulgaria is sacred.” 1The problems with the AAs/EIAs and public awareness in Bulgaria…………………………………………...27 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………27 2. The AA/EIA as regulated in Bulgarian law……………………………………………...28 3. The public awareness about nature protection and Natura 2000 in Bulgaria – the role of the environmental NGOs as a driving force for change…………………………………31 4. Three case studies – the golf complex in Bojuretz, Kavarna (2006), the construction works in Stranja (2009) and the ski resort in Bansko, Pirin (2011)……………………...34 4.1.The golf complex in Bojuretz, Kavarna (2006)……………………………………...34 4.1.1. Facts of the case……………………………………………………………...34 4.1.2. Analysis from the perspective of AA/EIA…………………………………...37 1 A statement by Michael Baltzer, Director of the WWF’s Danube-Carpathian Programme, URL: http://wwf.panda.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=88660 accessed 4.03.2012, 2 4.1.3.
    [Show full text]
  • A Census of Migrating Waders in Bulgaria During March&Ndash
    African-Eurasian :Flyways A census of migrating waders in Bulgaria during March-May 1990 Dimitar Nankinov, Kalina Tsvetkova, Kiril Bedev, Georgi Lamburov, Nikolai Minchev, Valentin Bozhilov, Simeon Marin, Georgi Seizov & Geigi Kotsakov Nankinov, D., Tsvetkova, K., Bedev, K., Lamburov, (3., Minchev, N., Bozhilov, V., Marin, S, Seizov, (3., & Kotsakov, (3. 1996. A census of migratingwaders in Bulgaria during March-May 1990. Wader Study Group Bull. 83: 37-43. A censuswas conductedat 14 principalareas for migratorywaders in Bulgaria. A total of 32 wader species were observed, representing40,802 individuals. The migration was at its maximum at the end of March and early April with 38% of records. Another migration wave occurredduring the second half of May. The greatest numbers of migrants were Ruffs Philomachuspugnax, which comprised35% of total wader numbers, followed by Curlew Sandpiper Calidrisferruginea (17.7%), and then Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta (11%). The Pomoriiskoand Atanassovskoezero (lake), where respectivelyon average 3,487 and 1,733 waders stopover, are of primary importance for the spring migration of waders in Bulgaria. INTRODUCTION AND METHODS Pomoriiskoezero, Durankulak), the Poda marshland near Burgas, the steppe sites at Cape Kaliakra, as well as A census of migratingwaders in Bulgaria was conducted inland reservoirs at the fisheries at Chelopechene, in March-May 1990 in connection with an international Blagoevgrad, Sokolitsa, Trud, Nikolaevo, and Yambol, the projectto study waders on their migration routes between artificial lakes at Gorni Dabnik and Pysachnik and the rice Africanwintering sites and nesting sites. In the course of fields at Belozem. For a number of reasons,among them the censuswe tried to includethe main areas in Bulgaria politicaltension in the country and lack of funds, the plan where waders converge (Figure 1 ), above all the lakes as originallyenvisaged was not fully realised.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Infringements to Bulgaria, Can We Call It a Success Story? Bankia, 06.December.2011
    EU infringements to Bulgaria, can we call it a success story? Bankia, 06.December.2011 Alexander Dountchev, APB Threats to Natura 2000 Illegal practices in the Bulgarian Natura 2000 Kaliakra IBA № 2007/4850 – Infringement procedure concerning the reduction of the designation area of 6 SPAs (Kaliakra, Rila, Pirin, etc). - Legal grounds for complaint: Art. 4 (1) of the Habitats Directive (designation of sites); - Scientific facts for complaint: Inventory of the Important Bird Areas in Bulgaria (2006) - Unofficial reasons for the ungrounded reduction of the designation area: Economical reasons (ski-resort projects, wind-farm projects); - Results of the infringement procedure: 5 out of 6 sites are designated, - Experience: You need top scientific research 460 investment projects 22.8% of the IBA area 42% of the SPA area Illegal practices in the Bulgarian Natura 2000 Kaliakra pSCI/SPA 2007 New development plan adopted without published SEA Illegal practices in the Bulgarian Natura 2000 KaliakraStrandja pSCI/SPA pSCI/SAP 2008 New development plan adopted without published SEA Illegal practices in the Bulgarian Natura 2000 № 2008/4260 – Infringement procedure concerning the destruction of Kaliakra IBA (Via Pontica) after 1.1.2007 as result of the illegal authorization of wind-farm projects before 1.1.2007 •Legal grounds for complaint: Art 4 (4) of the Birds Directive and Art. 6 (2) of the Habitats Directive (Kaliakra SPA was still not designated when the projects were authorized). •Evidences: Inventory of the Important Bird Areas in Bulgaria (official publication 2006), GIS-analysis, EIA documents and building permits for the wind-farms and other projects, complaints to the court, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiences on the Implementation of Natura 2000 in Central Europa
    www.nimfea.hu ◆ www.milvus.ro ◆ www.greenbalkans.org Foreword Europe’s biodiversity is in serious decline. At the species level, 42% of Europe’s native mammals, 43% of birds and 45% of reptiles are threatened with extinction extinction. That’s why we need Natura 2000, which – at least in principle - is a brave and encouraging policy to protect nature, to save Europe’s most vulnerable habitats and species for the future. Today there are more than 25,000 NATURA 2000 sites across the EU. There are national parks and protected nature areas in other countries as well, but NATURA 2000 is the only systematic and scientifically planned nature protection policy on a continent level, throughout almost the whole Europe. (Candidate countries and neighboring policy partners are also encouraged to participate it.) NATURA 2000 is not only about the pure nature, its sites very often include towns, villages, farms and businesses and the aim is to protect „living landscapes”. The EU laws specifically provide for businesses and local authorities to work together to find ways to protect biologically unique sites in ways that are both good for the environment and for development, in the spirit of the sustainable development. Farming, fishing, forestry and hunting can all continue. Even major development projects can be carried out as long as they do not destroy the ecological value of the site. When the EU talks about protecting biodiversity, we do not mean the conservation of one or two species. As Environmental Commissioner Dimas pointed out, “our real concern is with ensuring that our natural ecosystems continue to provide us with food, timber, clean water, flood protection, nutrient re-cycling, medicines, recreation and the many other goods and services that we currently receive free.” However in practice the sources for NATURA are limited, many times they are misused for simple agrarian subsidies.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeoseismological Studies for the Northern Bulgarian Black Sea Coast
    International Journal of Engineering Inventions e-ISSN: 2278-7461, p-ISSN: 2319-6491 Volume 9, Issue 1 [Jan. 2020] PP: 24-40 Archaeoseismological Studies for the Northern Bulgarian Black Sea Coast Boyko K. Ranguelov1, Evgeny A. Rogozhin2 ,Orlin V. Dimitrov3, Andrey M. Korzhenkov2 , Alexandr N. Ovsyuchenko2 1. Mining and geological university, Sofia, Bulgaria 2.Schmidt Institute of the Physics of the Earth – RAS, Moscow, Russia, 3. Institute of Oceanology – BAS, Varna, Bulgaria Abstract New data and information about the ancient seismic events affected the archaeological sites on the Northern Bulgarian Black Sea coast are observed, collected and interpreted. Almost all seismic effects to the investigated archaeological sites, structures (excavated or surface), or rocks are expressed as fallen stones or bricks or cracks, or different deformations to the possible epicenter. The calibration curve derived from the macroseismic map of the M7.2 seismic event of 31stMarch, 1901 is used for the investigated objects to transform observed seismic effects to the intensities. The variations in distances and respective intensities cover the observed effects and give the possibility of eventual reconstruction of the acting forces, their directions and correct interpretation of the observations. The proved of the suggested interpretations confirmed the seismic effects to the investigated objects. In total eight historical and archaeological sites on the Northern Bulgarian Black Sea coast have been investigated. Key words:historical earthquakes, seismic
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Farms in Balchik and Kaliakra –Via Pontica (Bulgaria)
    Strasbourg, 08 November 2019 T-PVS/Files(2019)21 [files21e_2019.docx] CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS Standing Committee 39th meeting Strasbourg, 3-6 December 2019 __________ Specific Sites - Files open Wind farms in Balchik and Kaliakra –Via Pontica (Bulgaria) - REPORT BY THE GOVERNMENT - Document prepared by The Ministry of Environment and Water, Bulgaria This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera plus distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire. T-PVS/Files(2019)21 2 - November 2019 – Wind farms planned near Balchik and Kaliakra – Via Pontica (Bulgaria) – Progress since February 2019 8 November 2019 1. Introduction The Case “Windfarms planned near Balchik and Kaliakra – Via Pontica (Bulgari)” has been monitored by the Bureau and Standing Committee of the Bern Convention for years and, as part of this process, Recommendation No 130 (2007) has been issued. At its 37th meeting held in 2017, taking into account the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, delivered on 14 January 2016 on case C-141/14 (Kaliakra), the Standing Committee decided to “leave the dossier open” and following the proposal of the NGO – complainant, assigned to the Secretariat to organize an on-the-spot appraisal (OSA) to assess the need to update Recommendation 130 (2007). At its 38th meeting held in 2018, the Standing Committee examined the above-mentioned “opened dossier” on this case, which resulted in the adoption of Recommendation No 200 (2018) on planned wind farms near Balchik and Kaliakra and other wind farms on the Via Pontica (Bulgaria) route”, which is based on the results and the recommendations formulated by the on- site mission held in May 2018, and which complements Recommendation 130 (2007) by providing of guidance on concrete steps which have to be taken in order to improve its implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Heritage
    Chapter 17: Cultural Heritage URS-EIA-REP-202375 Table of Contents 17 Cultural Heritage ...................................................................................... 17-1 17.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 17-1 17.2 Scoping ............................................................................................................ 17-2 17.3 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries ........................................................................ 17-4 17.3.1 Terrestrial Cultural Heritage Study and Survey Areas ............................... 17-4 17.3.2 Marine Cultural Heritage Study and Survey Areas ................................... 17-5 17.4 Baseline Data .................................................................................................. 17-21 17.4.1 Methodology and Data ........................................................................ 17-21 17.4.2 Secondary Data .................................................................................. 17-21 17.4.2.1 Desk-based Research .................................................................. 17-21 17.4.2.2 Reporting Methodology ............................................................... 17-23 17.4.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................. 17-23 17.4.3 Data Gaps .......................................................................................... 17-25 17.4.4 Primary Data/Baseline Surveys ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation Annual Report for 2014
    Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation Annual report for 2014 BULGARIAN BIODIVERSITY FOUNDATION ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2014 Sofia – Burgas, March 2015 1 Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation Annual report for 2014 I. CONTEXT FOR BBF WORK 2014 is defined by the economists as another lost year, when the economy started to improve, but politicians made it worse again. 2014 was extremely negative for Bulgaria - the year of political instability, suspended reforms, badly managed budget, deficit spending and bank crisis. And at the end of this critical year our loan rating was reduced to levels, we have not had even during the most severe recession in 2009- 2010. Many things have been known after the end of this year, but few lessons learned. For BBF 2014 started violently in defence of our favourite Strandja. A decision of the SAC and Ministry of Regional Development put on the agenda again one forgotten over the years problem – constructions in park areas. Protests against the adoption of the Master Plan of Tsarevo municipality were organised all over the country. We were very active and lead the protests in Sofia and Burgas. The issue about Strandja National Park Management Plan and our participation in it was again raised, this time even in Parliament and personally by the Minister of Environment and Water. We continued working on it, especially with Malko Tarnovo Municipality. At the same time Stefan Zlatarov, a Strandja NP Director of long standing, was forced to resign and his successor became Petko Nanchev. After the change the Directorate started slowly, but surely to regress. Maya Radeva, Balgarka NP manager, was controversially sacked, and an owner of a logging company was hired.
    [Show full text]
  • Cliff Erosion – Mapping, Causes and Effects in the Coastal Zone Near Cape Kaliakra (Northern Bulgarian Black Sea)
    GEOLOGICA BALCANICA, 48 (3), Sofia, Dec. 2019, pp. 35–41. Cliff erosion – mapping, causes and effects in the coastal zone near Cape Kaliakra (northern Bulgarian Black Sea) Plamen Ivanov, Rosen Nankin, Miroslav Krastanov Geological Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Bonchev Str., Bl. 24, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria; e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] (Accepted in revised form: December 2019) Abstract. The study covers the coastal slope in the Zelenka locality (northern Bulgarian Black Sea coast). This is a beautiful but also dangerous area due to constant sloping and falling of huge blocks of land on the shore. The slope is composed of Miocene sediments: diatomaceous clays (Euxinograd Formation), uncon- solidated aragonite sediments with limestone interbeds (Topola Formation), and a steep limestone rock crown (Karvuna Formation). An assessment of the material eroded from the slope, composed of aragonite sediments of the Topola Formation, for the period from October 2018 to March 2019 was made. The quantities of this material were measured and laboratory tests were carried out on the aragonite sediments. The grain size and plasticity (classification characteristics) of the soil were determined. The surface of the slope is waterlogged (or wet), as water flows down the slope of the contact formed between the Topola and Karvuna formations. The geotechnical studies and mapping of the coastal slope revealed that the erosion processes can affect not only the slope stability, but also of the road integrity, and therefore may pose a real geological risk. Ivanov, P., Nankin, R., Krastanov, M. 2019. Cliff erosion – mapping causes and effects in the coastal zone near Cape Kaliakra (northern Bulgarian Black Sea).
    [Show full text]
  • Black Sea Coast
    © Lonely Planet Publications 212 lonelyplanet.com SOUTHERN COAST •• Burgas 213 Climate History In summer, the climate is warm and mild, Evidence of Bronze Age and Thracian set- Black Sea Coast so it’s obviously the best – and the busiest – tlements have been found in the area, while time to visit. The average temperature is a Greek colonists from Apollonia (modern- warm 23°C, but sea breezes keep it cool. day Sozopol) expanded their territory into During winter the temperature rarely drops the Burgas region as far back as the 6th below freezing, but at least once a season a century BC. Later, the Romans came along storm (or three) howls in from the Black Sea and Emperor Vespasian founded a city here, For most foreign package-tourists, the Black Sea coast is Bulgaria, and the big, purpose-built and buries the coast in snow. named Deultum, in the 1st century AD. resorts here are becoming serious rivals to Spain and Greece in attracting international The name Burgas first appeared on maps holidaymakers. Many, of course, simply fly in, splash about and fly out again without seeing Media in the 17th century, when fisher folk from the wider region settled here. The city grew anything beyond the parasols and jet skis, but independent travellers will find plenty of places Programata (www.programata.bg) Free weekly listings magazine, in Bulgarian only, covering bars, clubs, restau- quickly after the completion of the railway to explore, including empty beaches to the south and north, the bird-filled Burgas Lakes, rants, cinemas and museums in Varna, Burgas and other from Plovdiv (1890) and the development of beautiful ancient towns such as Nesebâr and Sozopol and one of Bulgaria’s most attractive coastal towns.
    [Show full text]